I find it terribly ironic that this person is complaining of double standards when this article so clearly illustrates his own. While Israel undoubtedly suffers greatly from Palestinian violence it is outrageous to hear them portrayed as innocent victims, suffering from emnity that has a "much deeper root" (will people PLEASE stop citing anti-Semitism as the cause of all this??) Neither side is innocent, but it is important to remember that, even if Israel has "suffered three major attacks by surrounding Arab nations, suicide bombings, an extended rocket attack by Hezbollah and almost daily rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip," it is not the Israelis who are disenfranchised and forced to live in ghettos, nor is it the state of Israel that is under the constant threat of aggression or even nuclear war. When the recipients of its "retaliations" are so poor and weak, desperate and oppressed, one cannot help but hold Israel - the wealthier, more educated, more powerful participent in this crisis - more responsible.
This is silly. I agree with your perspective. I do believe that if both the Palestinians and Israelis are pressed to define borders they could live together.. maybe someday peacefully. It will still be a while before the hatreds of this generation and the last diminish. But the perspective offered by Simon Shute in this article shows that he is ignorant of the situation as a whole.
Like a lot of people, Simon Shute goes all the way back to the 1940s to cite reasons for Israel's bad behavior. Then he goes through the entire history from then until now, as if world has never moved on from the past.
In the conflict between Israel and Palestine, Israel has no incentive to make peace since it generally gets whatever military and economic assistance it requests from the U.S. no matter what it does.
Certainly Israel can be pressured to live in peace with the Palestinians. Withholding that assistance could do the job. There would undoubtedly be a few on both sides that could not forget, but in time even they could come to terms with peace.
First of all, let’s address Shute’s comment about the “re-established” Israel. Of which prior established Israel is he speaking? The ancient kingdom of Israel-as in 11th century BC? Using this logic today, Native Americans should have the right to impose their will upon the vastly more populous immigrant demographic. Shute’s supposed “re-established” Jewish population were Ashkenazi; hardly connected by any means with the people of ancient Israel. I think too, that the connotation of the word “established” implies a peaceable, effortless transition from ancient kingdom to modern state. Certainly history tells us that the “re-establishment” of Israel was a great deal more disruptive.
Another thing. What evidence have we been given that would allow us to believe Israel would be a “helpful and generous neighbor”? Their hostile takeover of Palestine prior to 1948? Their disregard for Palestinian humanity? Their domination of water sources over neighboring states? Their diplomatic hoops for international travelers (Arab and non-Arab alike)? Their ethnocentrism? I am completely unconvinced by Shute’s argument.
Moreover, Shute paints Israel as a victim of circumstances. His logic: There would be no retaliation if there were not rocket attacks. There would be regional peace if they could retain regional acceptance. These are elementary and undeveloped thought processes. Let’s not forget there are two parties involved, and to obtain peace concessions need to be made by both sides.
It would serve Shute well to rely more on fact and logic than bias and partiality.
I have so many issues with this article that I had the urge to click on the little “x” at the top right-hand corner of the window at almost every sentence.
The first sentence: “Muqtedar Khan suggests that the Israelis and the Palestinians can be pressed into defining national boundaries and living together in peace. He must know better.” It seems to me than many civilians on both sides want peace. And, in fact, the Palestinians aren’t even asking for the complete return to the original UN resolution in its entirety. Out of the US, Israel, and Palestine, Palestine has been the most flexible and willing to negotiate, and, at times, the side with the best track record for showing commitment and keeping their word.
The diction of this article is my next bone to pick. The author employs such word choice as “Israeli has suffered three major attacks” and “their irrational hatred of Israel.” Painting Israel as a completely innocent party in this does no one any good. Yes, both sides have committed atrocious crimes. In addition, in those three wars that they “suffered” through, it was Israel who emerged the victor. And as for “irrational hatred” of the country? I was disagree there, too. Unfortunate? Yes. Irrational? Not really. It is not uncommon nor irrational for the occupied to bear hatred towards their occupiers. And "re-established?" What in the world is he referring to? For someone talking so much of logic, I can't seem to find his.
“Israel would be as helpful and as generous a neighbor as any country could wish for.” The author first condemns the Two-State Solution, saying that it would “only provide a staging-ground for more serious attacks on Israel from close proximity,” and then paints Israel once again as a neighbor so helpful and generous that one couldn’t possibly wish for any better of a neighbor. Assuming we’re talking about its track record as a neighbor to the Arab nations, it has engaged in war with almost all of them, taking land from them for religious reasons, as was the case with East Jerusalem, or just militarily strategic reasons, as was the case with the Gholan Heights. Israel manufactures dangerous weapons that have been internationally outlawed, and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people has attracted the attention of many human rights organizations. Assuming we’re talking about Israel’s track record as a neighbor in a more broader sense, a more international sense, Israel has snubbed international law by settling far beyond its given borders. In addition, Israel is one of the smallest developed nations in the world with the third largest and powerful armies.
All of this in mind, we pay them billions of dollars every year in support when people in our own country do not have health care. Maybe we should take some of that money and build organizations within Palestine that would provide healthcare and education so that they don’t have to vote for Hamas again in protest of their conditions. Maybe if the balance of power changes between Israel and Palestine, then we’ll finally get somewhere in negotiations.
The author of this opinion piece apparently has the Israeli flag so tightly wrapped around his face that maybe he can’t see too clearly. But the saddest and most frightening thing about this situation would be if Americans actually agree with this.
This man seems very uninformed on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What I find interesting is he discusses "a deeper root" without ever defining it. He seems to imply, however, that anti-semitism is this "deeper root." Since when is offering constrictive criticism to a country that is violating several basic human rights anti-semitic? As a Jew, I would certainly be alarmed if verbal attacks were leveraged at Israel for no particular reason, that might smell of anti-semitism, but please lets not jump to the conclusion that there is this "deeper root" involved.
Also, I am curious what news sources this man is reading outside of Professor Khan's piece in the News Journal. If there is a double-standard, its biased towards Israel. I think people are worried about being portrayed as anti-semitic if they criticize Israel, just as this writer has done, so there is actually a significant bias towards favoring Israel in U.S. media, especially when compared to British media.
Finally, the man states that he hopes the new administration will have a different approach to the two-state solution. If Obama does what he has said, then this man will be sorely disappointed. Lately, I have been thinking about what Israel means to me and why I am in favor of the two-state solution, and I realized something. I think Israel is a point of pride for many Americans, whether Jewish or not. As Americans we are proud that a country we feel is similar to ourselves has been prosperous, and I think Jews are proud that Israel has become some an economically and militarily strong state. Kind of a 'no one is gonna push us around now' mentality. Mind you, this is solely my opinion, but I think Americans and American Jews will need to think hard about what would make them prouder; an economically and militarily strong, secure state, but one that oppresses some of its people, or a economically and militarily strong state that can protect itself, but also respects basic human rights. I choose the latter.
The author is clearly Pro-Israel and regurgitating Israeli policy statements. Speaking of double standards, the author only thinks of the safety and security of Israel, ignoring the attacks on Palestinians from the IDF. Also, the author is quite paranoid that the state of Israel will cease to exist, when it has the strongest military in the Middle East. In addition, I love how he comments on the 'irrational hatred of Israel' by Arab nations. This shows a clear misunderstanding of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Arabs seems quite rational to rebuke that has subjugated the fellow Arab Palestinians. The ironic thing is the most irrational position is this unqualified and unquestioned loyalty to Israeli policy in the Middle East.
I completely disagree with this article. The Israeli retaliation against unjustified attacks is not being recognized by the international community as the attack of an aggressor for no reason. If the Israelis hadn't driven the Palestinians off of their land in the first place and brutally repressed them for the last 60 or so years, the suicide bombings and attacks targeted at them would not exist. Or at least they would not exist to the extent that they do today. If both groups are willing to negotiate on a two state solution, which would clearly be the most beneficial outcome for both parties, then i find it unfair to the Palestinians to claim that it will just be a"staging-ground for more serious attacks on Israel from close proximity." The Palestinians deserve their own, sovereign state, and when they are given what they rightfully deserve, I don't think that they will continue to attack Israel.
What Simon says (no pun intended), presents a completely ignorant view of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. He is claiming that a two-state solution will be bad because it will be a launching point for terrorism. Completely wrong. This man is just spewing rhetoric with no facts to back it up. How come when polled a majority of Israelis AND Palestinians support the two-state solution? Both sides want peace. He condemns the Bush administration for proposing this peace option because he thinks Israel will be more vulnerable. Let’s not forget how much economic and military aid Bush has provided for the Israelis.
Shute also thinks that the Arab nations can simply say “Ok Israel, we are best buddies now”. That is not the case; nations cannot simply decide to like each other without fixing the problems that caused the friction in the first place. Many Arab nations are mad at Israel because they are overwhelmed with Palestinian refugees. Simon obviously does not know about the Saudi Peace Plan. The plan will create regional peace and respect Palestinian human rights as well. On top of that, the Saudi idea is remarkably similar to the current negotiations. Shute does not grasp the conflict at all.
I think it really comes down to a racist mentality that a lot of Americans don't even realize they have. Palestinians are known as terrorists in America, due to the way we portray them. This writer calls Palestinians irrational and indicates that they would prefer violence if given a peaceful resolution. The entire article is full of implications of the inferiority of Palestinians as a people. It's amazing how testimonies from some Americans are similarly passionate to those of actual Israeli's. It shows how well the Israeli and U.S. government help to facilitate these beliefs. You would think Simon was a Jew living in Israel by his distaste for Palestine.
11 comments:
I find it terribly ironic that this person is complaining of double standards when this article so clearly illustrates his own. While Israel undoubtedly suffers greatly from Palestinian violence it is outrageous to hear them portrayed as innocent victims, suffering from emnity that has a "much deeper root" (will people PLEASE stop citing anti-Semitism as the cause of all this??) Neither side is innocent, but it is important to remember that, even if Israel has "suffered three major attacks by surrounding Arab nations, suicide bombings, an extended rocket attack by Hezbollah and almost daily rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip," it is not the Israelis who are disenfranchised and forced to live in ghettos, nor is it the state of Israel that is under the constant threat of aggression or even nuclear war. When the recipients of its "retaliations" are so poor and weak, desperate and oppressed, one cannot help but hold Israel - the wealthier, more educated, more powerful participent in this crisis - more responsible.
This is silly. I agree with your perspective. I do believe that if both the Palestinians and Israelis are pressed to define borders they could live together.. maybe someday peacefully. It will still be a while before the hatreds of this generation and the last diminish. But the perspective offered by Simon Shute in this article shows that he is ignorant of the situation as a whole.
Like a lot of people, Simon Shute goes all the way back to the 1940s to cite reasons for Israel's bad behavior. Then he goes through the entire history from then until now, as if world has never moved on from the past.
In the conflict between Israel and Palestine, Israel has no incentive to make peace since it generally gets whatever military and economic assistance it requests from the U.S. no matter what it does.
Certainly Israel can be pressured to live in peace with the Palestinians. Withholding that assistance could do the job. There would undoubtedly be a few on both sides that could not forget, but in time even they could come to terms with peace.
First of all, let’s address Shute’s comment about the “re-established” Israel. Of which prior established Israel is he speaking? The ancient kingdom of Israel-as in 11th century BC? Using this logic today, Native Americans should have the right to impose their will upon the vastly more populous immigrant demographic. Shute’s supposed “re-established” Jewish population were Ashkenazi; hardly connected by any means with the people of ancient Israel. I think too, that the connotation of the word “established” implies a peaceable, effortless transition from ancient kingdom to modern state. Certainly history tells us that the “re-establishment” of Israel was a great deal more disruptive.
Another thing. What evidence have we been given that would allow us to believe Israel would be a “helpful and generous neighbor”? Their hostile takeover of Palestine prior to 1948? Their disregard for Palestinian humanity? Their domination of water sources over neighboring states? Their diplomatic hoops for international travelers (Arab and non-Arab alike)? Their ethnocentrism? I am completely unconvinced by Shute’s argument.
Moreover, Shute paints Israel as a victim of circumstances. His logic: There would be no retaliation if there were not rocket attacks. There would be regional peace if they could retain regional acceptance. These are elementary and undeveloped thought processes. Let’s not forget there are two parties involved, and to obtain peace concessions need to be made by both sides.
It would serve Shute well to rely more on fact and logic than bias and partiality.
I have so many issues with this article that I had the urge to click on the little “x” at the top right-hand corner of the window at almost every sentence.
The first sentence: “Muqtedar Khan suggests that the Israelis and the Palestinians can be pressed into defining national boundaries and living together in peace. He must know better.” It seems to me than many civilians on both sides want peace. And, in fact, the Palestinians aren’t even asking for the complete return to the original UN resolution in its entirety. Out of the US, Israel, and Palestine, Palestine has been the most flexible and willing to negotiate, and, at times, the side with the best track record for showing commitment and keeping their word.
The diction of this article is my next bone to pick. The author employs such word choice as “Israeli has suffered three major attacks” and “their irrational hatred of Israel.” Painting Israel as a completely innocent party in this does no one any good. Yes, both sides have committed atrocious crimes. In addition, in those three wars that they “suffered” through, it was Israel who emerged the victor. And as for “irrational hatred” of the country? I was disagree there, too. Unfortunate? Yes. Irrational? Not really. It is not uncommon nor irrational for the occupied to bear hatred towards their occupiers. And "re-established?" What in the world is he referring to? For someone talking so much of logic, I can't seem to find his.
“Israel would be as helpful and as generous a neighbor as any country could wish for.” The author first condemns the Two-State Solution, saying that it would “only provide a staging-ground for more serious attacks on Israel from close proximity,” and then paints Israel once again as a neighbor so helpful and generous that one couldn’t possibly wish for any better of a neighbor. Assuming we’re talking about its track record as a neighbor to the Arab nations, it has engaged in war with almost all of them, taking land from them for religious reasons, as was the case with East Jerusalem, or just militarily strategic reasons, as was the case with the Gholan Heights. Israel manufactures dangerous weapons that have been internationally outlawed, and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people has attracted the attention of many human rights organizations. Assuming we’re talking about Israel’s track record as a neighbor in a more broader sense, a more international sense, Israel has snubbed international law by settling far beyond its given borders. In addition, Israel is one of the smallest developed nations in the world with the third largest and powerful armies.
All of this in mind, we pay them billions of dollars every year in support when people in our own country do not have health care. Maybe we should take some of that money and build organizations within Palestine that would provide healthcare and education so that they don’t have to vote for Hamas again in protest of their conditions. Maybe if the balance of power changes between Israel and Palestine, then we’ll finally get somewhere in negotiations.
The author of this opinion piece apparently has the Israeli flag so tightly wrapped around his face that maybe he can’t see too clearly. But the saddest and most frightening thing about this situation would be if Americans actually agree with this.
This man seems very uninformed on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What I find interesting is he discusses "a deeper root" without ever defining it. He seems to imply, however, that anti-semitism is this "deeper root." Since when is offering constrictive criticism to a country that is violating several basic human rights anti-semitic? As a Jew, I would certainly be alarmed if verbal attacks were leveraged at Israel for no particular reason, that might smell of anti-semitism, but please lets not jump to the conclusion that there is this "deeper root" involved.
Also, I am curious what news sources this man is reading outside of Professor Khan's piece in the News Journal. If there is a double-standard, its biased towards Israel. I think people are worried about being portrayed as anti-semitic if they criticize Israel, just as this writer has done, so there is actually a significant bias towards favoring Israel in U.S. media, especially when compared to British media.
Finally, the man states that he hopes the new administration will have a different approach to the two-state solution. If Obama does what he has said, then this man will be sorely disappointed. Lately, I have been thinking about what Israel means to me and why I am in favor of the two-state solution, and I realized something. I think Israel is a point of pride for many Americans, whether Jewish or not. As Americans we are proud that a country we feel is similar to ourselves has been prosperous, and I think Jews are proud that Israel has become some an economically and militarily strong state. Kind of a 'no one is gonna push us around now' mentality. Mind you, this is solely my opinion, but I think Americans and American Jews will need to think hard about what would make them prouder; an economically and militarily strong, secure state, but one that oppresses some of its people, or a economically and militarily strong state that can protect itself, but also respects basic human rights. I choose the latter.
The author is clearly Pro-Israel and regurgitating Israeli policy statements. Speaking of double standards, the author only thinks of the safety and security of Israel, ignoring the attacks on Palestinians from the IDF. Also, the author is quite paranoid that the state of Israel will cease to exist, when it has the strongest military in the Middle East. In addition, I love how he comments on the 'irrational hatred of Israel' by Arab nations. This shows a clear misunderstanding of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Arabs seems quite rational to rebuke that has subjugated the fellow Arab Palestinians. The ironic thing is the most irrational position is this unqualified and unquestioned loyalty to Israeli policy in the Middle East.
I completely disagree with this article. The Israeli retaliation against unjustified attacks is not being recognized by the international community as the attack of an aggressor for no reason. If the Israelis hadn't driven the Palestinians off of their land in the first place and brutally repressed them for the last 60 or so years, the suicide bombings and attacks targeted at them would not exist. Or at least they would not exist to the extent that they do today. If both groups are willing to negotiate on a two state solution, which would clearly be the most beneficial outcome for both parties, then i find it unfair to the Palestinians to claim that it will just be a"staging-ground for more serious attacks on Israel from close proximity." The Palestinians deserve their own, sovereign state, and when they are given what they rightfully deserve, I don't think that they will continue to attack Israel.
What Simon says (no pun intended), presents a completely ignorant view of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. He is claiming that a two-state solution will be bad because it will be a launching point for terrorism. Completely wrong. This man is just spewing rhetoric with no facts to back it up. How come when polled a majority of Israelis AND Palestinians support the two-state solution? Both sides want peace. He condemns the Bush administration for proposing this peace option because he thinks Israel will be more vulnerable. Let’s not forget how much economic and military aid Bush has provided for the Israelis.
Shute also thinks that the Arab nations can simply say “Ok Israel, we are best buddies now”. That is not the case; nations cannot simply decide to like each other without fixing the problems that caused the friction in the first place. Many Arab nations are mad at Israel because they are overwhelmed with Palestinian refugees. Simon obviously does not know about the Saudi Peace Plan. The plan will create regional peace and respect Palestinian human rights as well. On top of that, the Saudi idea is remarkably similar to the current negotiations. Shute does not grasp the conflict at all.
I think it really comes down to a racist mentality that a lot of Americans don't even realize they have. Palestinians are known as terrorists in America, due to the way we portray them. This writer calls Palestinians irrational and indicates that they would prefer violence if given a peaceful resolution. The entire article is full of implications of the inferiority of Palestinians as a people. It's amazing how testimonies from some Americans are similarly passionate to those of actual Israeli's. It shows how well the Israeli and U.S. government help to facilitate these beliefs. You would think Simon was a Jew living in Israel by his distaste for Palestine.
Post a Comment